What's the first modern metal album?

Why is "not swinging" considered better -- or harder, or heavier, or more modern -- than swinging?

If it actually is considered better, it's probably nothing more thought-out than that it seperates it from what came before - the music of *that* generation - and lends it a certain unfriendly extremity ie freaks out the squares

I mean, no doubt there are some out there with dubious Geirish cod-musicological theories, but I doubt it's the norm

i also think that a lot of 70's bands were well-versed in other genres. they had played in a zillion garage/bar bands and they had grown up on blues rock, but also r&b and other dancey musics. modern day metal warriors listen to LOTS of metal and they learn how to play metal and they are really, um, into metal. early thud rock "proto-metal" bands were heavily influenced by sabbath but they were also heavily influenced by bands like grand funk - a band whose influence should never be underestimated - and the blooze rock trios and quartets had funky feet at times. which is why i love 70's stuff so much. and bands that could blaze hard rock and then pull out an extended funky percussion break like it wasn't no thing. but modern dudes if they came from anywhere else but the metal world came from, like, the hardcore punk world. or the other way around. not much variety there. thus, most of them couldn't swing if their lives depended on it. or want to swing for that matter.

but you still love it?

the first glimmers of "modern" metal go back a LONG way too. here's a random example from 1972:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIsvaLkxtDw

Scott's post is great. I know the Coverdale/Hughes era of Deep Purple gets slighted, mostly because of what those guys did AFTER they left that band, but that band could fucking swing and rock like no other. When they got Tommy Bolin in the band, it sounded like Stevie Wonder on steroids (a good thing). Come Taste the Band is one of the most underrated things ever.

"and bands that could blaze hard rock and then pull out an extended funky percussion break like it wasn't no thing"

This sentence sums up Coverdale-era DP perfectly.

dubious Geirish cod-musicological theories

Ha ha, I've been listening to UFO's Force It this morning, and it's a good record, but what hits me is that it mainly seems to be about melodies. There's something missing for me; it feels thin, somehow. I like it, but don't love it. Wonder what Geir would think if he heard it.

maybe i should just say priest/maiden?

Yeah, I was wondering why Maiden weren't a bigger presence on this thread; seems what metal eventually evolved into is as attributable to them at least as much, maybe more, than Priest (who sound more rock'n'roll, of the two, right?) And obviously what's always most stood in my way with those two bands, what I've always probably held against them, is that they got rid of metal's swing. (Never liked their singing much either, so sue me.) And swing is a big part of what I always loved about both Motorhead and AC/DC (though I'd say both of them forfeited a lot of it, as time went on.)

Also wondering why Blue Oyster Cult haven't been mentioned here more. Didn't they sound pretty modern, early on? Or is it just that almost nobody later was able to replicate what they were great at?

Guess lots of Tull (and lots of other bands) would count as "heavy prog" too, come to think of it.

grand funk - a band whose influence should never be underestimated

... in the USA, no-one else in the world listened to them

skotm

"... in the USA, no-one else in the world listened to them"

not true. ask the members of buffalo or a thousand other non-u.s. heavy bands of that time.

This thread has moved from baffling to "I sorta get it" to downright hilarious (e.g., Drugs A. Money's "non-modern metal-Zep as transitional-first Sab=heavy metal, fully formed" trajectory). But I've had one question consistently throughout:

For the purposes of this poll, I consider power metal, NWOBHM, true, thrash, speed, black, death, grindcore and some others all as modern metal. Some of you view Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Budgie, early Scorpions, as just plain metal, pure and simple, rather than proto-metal. Understandable.

So did just plain metal ever exist, Fastnbulbous?

not true. ask the members of buffalo or a thousand other non-u.s. heavy bands of that time.

Well, I've never heard of Buffalo, so obv. I'm no expert! In the UK then, for certain.

Are they Australian perhaps?

just spinning wax out of gold, kjb.

Yeah, Buffalo were Aussies (and really great.)

And yeah, I've been wondering, too, why fastnbulbous seems to think things would have gone straight from "proto metal" to "modern metal". Which is kinda what I've been asking since the very beginning.

xp And I guess, for me, when you get rid of the swing, the blues, the dance, that Scott talked about in '70s rock, what ultimately happens is the music gets colder, more clinical. And right, more reined in, influence-wise. Which doesn't mean it can't still be great. Just hard for it to get better that way. (And probably a lot of that has to do with me being an American who grew up on soul music and pop and funky rock'n'roll as much as metal. When I was really young, I even liked '50s rock'n'roll as much as most current '70s stuff. If metal is all I'd ever listened to, my ears would be different.)

i will say this, as far as international borders go, van halen hit the u.s. hard in the same way that judas priest hit the u.k. hard. meaning, a thousand spotty u.k. kids started playing guitar/forming bands when they got bit by judas priest and a MILLION pimple-pussed american kids did the same when they heard VH. but judas priest created a thousand NWOBHM bands and VH created metal bands and hard rock bands and glam rock bands. people took different things from van halen. people took leather and studs from judas priest. americans were a little slower in embracing priest. but it wouldn't be long before they were gods on earth here.

well, chuck, that's probably why you like modern stuff that takes elements of other genres and sounds like goth or folk or whatever and adds it to modern metal. because that IS a way to make it better. for you. or make it different. more enjoyable? for you. me, i'll listen to anything.

Right. Jigs are dance rhythms, too! But I still don't think I like even the best of that stuff anywhere near as much as my favorite metal from the '70s, even '80s. It's not even a close match.

because of nostalgic reasons or because you've known them for nearly 40 years its comfortable?

Its perfectly natural though, not everyone is john peel. I still love stuff from the early 90s when i really got into music, i just love modern stuff as much i guess.

or almost as much

xp And I'm not saying all metal should have "dance rhythms," btw, or even that "dance" is the only kind of rhythm. Voivod are probably my favorite "modern metal" band of the past quarter century, and I don't know how much of their stuff I'd say swings; probably almost none of it. But they're not stiff, either. I'd still usually rather listen to Nazareth, though.

because of nostalgic reasons or because you've known them for nearly 40 years its comfortable?

Neither. As I've been saying here, it's because of musical reasons. (And I don't get the John Peel comparison. I'm the guy who makes ridiculously long lists of 100 or 150 albums I like most years. I can't help it! So it's not exactly like my ears are closed to new music.)

chuck, do you know this song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIt60Q2dLi4

do the funky priest!

i wasnt comparing you to peel

Also, lots of the '70s and '80s stuff I love, I only just heard, for the first time! (See: The Riot and Yesterday & Today LPs mentioned upthread.) So "known them for 40 years" nostalgia doesn't come into play. (Hell, I can't even remember the last time I put on Toys In The Attic. I don't play my old favorites very often. Probably should more. But I'm always obsessively looking for new stuff to like. It's just that most of the very best stuff that's new to me is, uh, old!)

love it all really. 1974 metal ruled hard though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2pVqymfaq0

"BOC" -- Didn't they sound pretty modern, early on? Or is it just that almost nobody later was able to replicate what they were great at?

Tyranny really did. And no one did replicate what they were great at. Mostly because of manpower limitations and art. No Buck Dharma on guitar, no Pearlman lyrics. No image as the simon-bar-sinisters in leather and nazi regalia of heavy rock. Until Judas Priest, who also did the leather thing, but from the bdsm heavy traffic gay underground thing. Another story, entirely.

Force It is not one of the more melodic UFO albums. The really nice-sounding singer on it is Jimmy Dewar of the Robin Trower band guesting on a couple things. Very hard rocking and tough.

And the next album after that, No Heavy Petting, has them fully arrived. It's polished and
steely plus loaded with the band's desire to tell stories and still do Frankie Miller things.

As for Van Halen, the band not only spawned too many others, it also was responsible for transforming the guitar industry. And not utterly in a good way. For a time in the US, the market was completely overrun and dominated by Eddie van Halen-style guitars and a nauseatingly large number of trivial variations on them.

john justen to thread

So did just plain metal ever exist, Fastnbulbous?

To me, everything from mid-70s Sabbath, Scorpions, Priest, Maiden, Saxon, Raven, all the way through Metallica, Slayer and High On Fire, Mastodon and Slough Feg are "plain metal." Obviously very few people use "modern metal" in everyday speech. I used it for the purposes of this poll to differentiate from early metal or proto-metal.

There is little consensus about what this first modern metal album is. I think that's why it's an interesting question worth discussing. The discussion here has been great!

I sent the questions for Glenn to him, hopefully will get response tonight.

grand funk - a band whose influence should never be underestimated

... in the USA, no-one else in the world listened to them

― tom d: he did what he had to do now he is dead (Tom D.), Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:24 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well I guess that means they totally suck then.

well, they do!

Uh, this coming from a guy who likes Pearl Jam.

Next!!

I dont know how you can say you like hard rock/metal and think that Grand Funk sucks.

A lot of people are maybe only familiar with We're An American Band which I'm not crazy about. I just finally heard their first three albums last week. A couple do sort of suck in parts, but I think Grand Funk (1970) is quite good.

If you are only familiar with WAAB, go get Grand Funk Live and prepare to have your mind blown. Everything a hard rock fan would want in something from 1970

I think Grand Funk (1970) is v good tbh. It's the only I've listened to so far though.

i love grand funk. from first to last. but i'm special in the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHUvhJufYwA&feature=related

I think Grand Funk (1970) is v good tbh. It's the only I've listened to so far though.

― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 18:21 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

seconded, also The Obsessed covered 'Inside Looking Out' off of it which counts for something imo

love. nothing but love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsFdzHQPfdc&feature=related

so phat...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwHsh5T0ntk

Man that vers. of Into the Sun is killer.

Sabotage came out before Sad Wings and really seems to predict thrash et al. I don't think you can convince me that Sabbath's s/t isn't metal. So Black Sabbath is the first metal, and Sabotage the first "modern metal" per the justifications in the thread title.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

This would have been loads easier if the poll were conducted on songs eh? Black Sabbath LP might be corrupted by blues rock but the title track certainly isn't. In fact the title track ticks most boxes except those of speed and virtuosity. The first old metal song is 'Jupiter' by Gustav Holst.

There's a particular form of madness amongst some journos in the UK for giving the first heavy metal song to 'You Really Got Me' by the Kinks, which is mistaking novelty for originality. Like claiming that nu metal was spawned from Walk This Way rather than She Watch Channel Zero (or whatever, I don't really care that much).

mistaking novelty for originality

Please expand. (How is novelty -- or the '60s Kinks, for that matter -- not original??)

But anyway, the answer to that question is Link Wray's "Rumble." Obviously. (Or maybe Johnny Burnette and the Rock and Roll Trio's "Train Kept A Rollin"? Doubtful, but possible.)

I guess I meant in the sense of those songs being more like experiments that at the time stood on their own as curios than the origins of a new sound. Although Walk This Way is a novelty record in more ways than You Really Got Me is. I didn't mean that they aren't original.

You say obviously. I'd say it's not obvious at all, otherwise there wouldn't be threads like this or a twenty year plus debate rumbling on about it. Obviously.

Link Wray is no more the father of heavy metal than Blow Fly is of hip hop. But again this is just my opinion, innit.

Seems to me that most gamechanging metal records (ditto most other genres, but as we're here) have been deemed both novel and original at one point, often simultaneously